News Report #5

Motoko Rich and Brad Stone, The New York Times Online

11.17.09

"Cellphone Apps Challenge the Rise of E-Readers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/technology/18reader.html

Alright so eBooks will probably be dominating consumers for the holidays -right? Wrong. People are discovering that their smartphones already have the potential to do what any Kindle can. Why the inconvenience of reading off of a cellphone screen as opposed to the larger eBook one? Because by doing so, they will save $250 to $350. For the last eight months, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other, smaller companies have been releasing this book-reading software for iPhones and smartphones. In fact, 84 million Americans already have smartphones that can run these applications. And that's just phones. Apple has sold more than 50 million iPod Touches that also run e-book software. But, of course, Apple itself doesn’t see iPhones or iPods as the primary reading device they can profit from. Next year they plan to introduce a tablet computer — some device bigger than a phone (smaller than a Kindle?) “The iPod Touch is always at hand,” said eBook app user Shannon Stacey. “It’s my calendar, it’s my everything, so my books are always with me.” Interestingly enough Stacey also owns a Sony Reader, and claims she has bought twice as many e-books for her iPod Touch as for her Sony. Amazon is currently working on e-reading software for the BlackBerry and for Macintosh computers and last week introduced the said software for Windows users. But that's not it: publishers are now developing new forms of books especially for "smartphone readers," not eBook readers. Musician Nick Cave recently wrote his second novel, for which he worked with his publisher and a multimedia company to develop an app for the iPhone that incorporates the text but also videos, music (composed by himself) and audio of the author reading the book.

Okay, so I've never heard of this before, and though in light of recent events, this shouldn't surprise me - but it kind of does. This is sort of ridiculous. Yeah, I see it being convenient knowing that I could have the current novel I'm reading in my pocket, on the small device that I carry around with me everywhere anyway. Yeah, it's convenient not to have to spend the $250-$350 for a Kindle, but it's not a Kindle. The one business lady in the article says she uses her iPhone to read romance novels on her coffee or lunch break, and I get that -- but I really don't see how into a book you can get when you're reading it off of your cellphone. At least the eBook readers are designed for reading. Phones are phones. And all the apps are fun, but I've never used one that is that engaging, nor have I ever seen somebody use a smartphone app for longer than 30 seconds. This may just be me, but when I find the time to read for pleasure, I usually remove myself away from my phone and other distracting technologies so I can relax and get into the book. (Lately I've been doing it by the fireplace with some hot cocoa. TMI?) I can see where all the big companies are making profit off this, but like everything else with this whole digital libraries vs. actual hard-copies of books, I don't know where this is headed...

News Post #4

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/technology/companies/21google.html?_r=1&ref=technology

Google recently signed an agreement with the University of Michigan that will give librarians input and oversight on the prices of books within Google's digital library. Google is doing this smoothing over in light of their potential lawsuit settlement of their book-scanning project, because there was a lot of criticism due to "the exclusive rights the agreement gives Google to publish online and to profit from millions of so-called orphan books, out-of-print books that are protected by copyright but whose rights holders cannot be found." However, Sergey Brin, Google co-founder, president of Google's technology, says that "the settlement would allow Google to offer widespread access to millions of books that are largely hidden in the stacks of university libraries." Google's plan is to have one computer at public libraries that will have free access to full texts, and universities can purchase subscriptions in order to make this service available to others. The costs of these subscriptions are based on the universities' student enrollment. Google's new propsal, which they are trying out with the University of Michigan, allows the university to essentially decide the prices. They can "object if it thinks the prices Google charges libraries for access to its digital collection are too high, a major concern of some librarians." Any disputes will be resolved outside of court between the two parties. However, only libraries that lend books to Google for their scanning will be allowed to object unfair pricing. The American Library Association thinks that Google's plan is "a step in the right direction," but is wary that Google will "set artificially high prices for its digial collection." Google is also giving libraries that contribute books discounts.

I think I'm beginning to hate Google. It seems that they are just trying to hush up any naysayers as they continue their plan to dominate American libraries and have all of their collections digitized into their own databases. At the very least, they are throwing these libraries a bone, giving them discounts, etc. just so they'll have fewer incentives to complain during this whole process. I'm pretty sure the American Library Association is keep to what Google is up to, and I am glad they asked the court to oversee this settlement, but it seems that Google will eventually get what they want because they are Google. They're taking over!

Reading #5

"Information Navigation 101" by Andrea L. Foster.
Chronicle of Higher Education (3/9/2007)


The article "Information Navigation 101," by Andrea L. Foster, brings up the point that although this generation of undergraduates consistently use technology, we may not be as tech savvy as we think. It states that for collegiate research, students rely on Google or Wikipedia moreover peer-reviewed sources. Foster says that all of the information we recieve online is confusing students, and beceause there is so many resources, "students are drowning information." Because of this, at colleges all over the country, librarians are finding methods to instruct the students to become more "information literate," or "more adept at locating and evaulating electronic data." The vice president of Educause -- "a higher learning technology consortium" --says that everyone uses the Internet because of its convenience, but it is important that our research skills stay effective. Foster later points out that most every university library in the country now offers information literacy courses/help, or they are mandatory.


In my experience, it's no surprise that students in general use Google and Wikipedia as their main source of information during academic research. In most of the technical English classes that I've taken, that requires verifying names, spelling, translations, etc. my professors encouraged the use of Google in class. I think it's great that so many universities offer courses trying to help students become "information literate," because students primarily use Google and Wikipedia because of their accessibility. But if they're aware that they can retrieve more relevant information elsewhere, hopefully they will apply the few extra mouse-clicks, seconds of reading/typing to get it. I also think it is great that so many colleges are requiring that students are trained to become "more adept at locating and evaulating electronic data," because I feel that they aren't aware that there are better methods of getting information, or they are aware, but they just don't have any idea how to retrieve it. However, I think that when it comes to scholarly research, simple search engines like Google will always dominate in numbers, because it is easy and people can be lazy. It's why Dan Brown, Danielle Steel, or Dean Koontz novels will always be on the best-seller list -- there are plenty of books that would probably be a more rewarding read to the consumers, but it is a safe bet. People get drive-thru fast food, or delivery, when they could eat a more healthful meal for just as cheap if they just made it themselves, but they don't. It's no different than the methods of how Americans get their information.

Reading #4

"The Infodiet: How Libraries Can Offer an Appetizing Alternative to Google" by Steven Bell. Chronicle of Higher Education (2/20/2004).

In Steven Bell's article, "The Infodiet," he talks about the competition between Google and academic libraries - "the original search engines." He explains that critics and students alike are lured by Google's elementary accessibility and the heaps of information it produces, but just because there is a lot of it, does not necesarily mean that it is all useful or the best information you can get. He describes Google's search results as a "junk-information diet," comparing it to greasy fast food, while libraries are the eschewed hearty and healthy meals. However, he feels that libraries should "Googleize" their databases in athestic and accessbility standards, but while still yielding high-quality information, because students find libraries' electronic resources difficult to use. He quotes several libraries from universities who feels their students shouldn't have to deal with eResources' complexities and that libraries should "emulate popular Web search engines." He then talks about the "RedLightGreen" project, "a nonprofit group of more t han 160 universities, national libraries," etc. whose database interface has only a single search box (like Google), but the result screen yields categorized, relevant material more in sync with academic searches. Bell ends with the argument that it is up to librarians to remind professors, administrators, etc. that no Internet search engine will ever equal the services a campus library can provide.

I thought Bell's article was really interesting and very, very relevant. I hear the word "Google" come out of professors' mouths at least five times a day, in relation to obtaining information for whatever. This, combined with their corporate power and economic worth, I think, leads my generation to believe that Google is number one source for information when it comes to doing some sort of academic research. Yeah, I use Google for things that I need to brush up on, but when it comes to gathering information to write any kind of paper (argumentative, anaylsis, opinion, etc.) I use more obscure sites to seek out richer thoughts. I have used the libraries' electronic resources in the past, and have always been impressed by the non-cliches and unrepetitive info I could use from it (as opposed to any online search engine). However, like Bell says, for a student who does not use the eResouces on a daily basis, to actually obtain information is like a complex task. I was intimidated and frustrated just trying to access this article, and had to consistently refer to the directions you gave. It's relieving to hear that groups are trying to make the libraries' databases more accessible, because I am aware that its content is way more hearty.

Reading #3

Firstly, the article would probably be meaningless if you did not take the time to see Thomas Frey's credentials on the side of the webpage, which states he is a "Senior Futurist at the DaVinci Institute, and Google's top rated futurist speaker. Unlike most speakers, Tom works closely with his Board of Visionaries to develop original research studies, which enables him to speak on unusual topics, translating trends into unique opportunities." In his article "The Future of Libraries" he offers insight into how things were and how things will be pertaining to the way people interact with the library and its services. Frey begins the article with a intriguing anecdote involving the journey of Leonardo Da Vinci's extraordinary works after he died and how they passed between libraries over the years, rearranging itself into collections. He then tells lists out all of the beneficial aspects of library services and then informs the reader that definition of all that is changing. Later he re-caps prior technologies in the library (the oldest being writing, reading; recently, iPod and Podcasting) and tells us that all technologies have a limited life span. Though, it is not until scientists can "conquer the ultimate small storage particle" that we can start technologically advancing. the simple search days are numbered. result of this opportunities for libraries to interact with it and build new and exciting “information experiences”. Currently our searches are in text form using "some forms of image, audio, and video" to search, but "the next generation search technology will include the ability to search for such attributes as taste, smell, texture, reflectivity, opacity, mass, density, tone, speed, and volume." He concludes with his main point, about how the way people interact with the library is changing. By spanning the history (so far) of the library, Frey illustrates that they have changed drastically from the time of da Vinci, but "we’ve only scratched the surface of many more changes to come" so we should enjoy the journey.

Okay, so I was really impressed with Frey's occupation/credentials and thought what he had to say was really intriguing after reading through it for a second time. Yes, the article pertained mainly to the future of libraries and how they will technologically advance (slowly), but all of the technologies that are in a library are the ones people will use inside on an everyday basis, outside of the library. One thing that kind of made me think was when Frey said that the keyboard will be soon to go.. So I guess that means you just actually speak the letters or words to a computer, cell phones, etc.? That sounds pretty cool, but currently I have a Moshi alarm clock, which I speak with to set alarms, time, get temperature, etc. and it's convenient, but sometimes it can be really frustrating. And I don't see anyone every using voice-activation for their cell phones. I think people like the privacy of not saying the words aloud? It's kind of scary having Frey predict all these new things coming out replacing what you haven't even bought yet, but it is good to know. Also, I'm sure it is really helpful to librarians to get the gist of knowing what to expect and plan ahead for continuous change while still delivering all of the services libraries have always provided to people.

News Report #3

Ryan Singel, Wired Magazine

09.17.09

"Google Lets You Custom-Print Millions of Public-Domain Books"

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/google-books-publish-on-demand/

Google has found a way to let people print legitimate, customized copies of books that are in public-domain. Seven years ago, Google began scanning endless books from the nation's leading university libraries and have been converting them into documents available, through Google, to be searched and read. Recently, Google partnered with On Demand Books -- a company that is best known for its Espresso Book Machine, which is, according to their official website, "a fully integrated patented book making machine which can automatically print, bind and trim on demand at point of sale perfect bound library quality paperback books with 4-color cover indistinguishable from their factory made versions." It can also print, bind and cut to size with a color cover a 300-page book in about four minutes. To buy and print any public-domain book of your choice, they're predicting, will cost approximately eight dollars. Dane Neller, On Demand Books CEO, claims this partnership "flips book distribution on its head" and calling it a "revolution" now that “content retrieval is now centralized and production is decentralized.” You may have not noticed an Espresso Book Machine in your city quite yet, because currently only 30 of them are offered sparsely in Ann Arbor, London, Egypt, Canada, and Melbourne. But the company hopes to sell 60 more printers in the next year, so keep your eyes peeled.

When I began to read this article to be advertising a new revolution in the world of books, I was not surprised to see Google's name all over it. However, I was shocked to read that they are actually (somewhat) encouraging books to be read on paper. From what I can gather, I think this is a great idea. The idea of being able to personally customize the look of your novel and print it in professional quality hot off the press is pretty cool. I knew personally I've tried to find hardcovers of a few of my favorite books only to find that you can pretty much only find them on Amazon or eBay for an obscene amount of money, because they are now out-of-print and/or a collectible. Also, there are a lot of readers who are skeptical, on-the-fence, or just not interested in the current craze of digital book readers, like Amazon's Kindle, and if they knew that they can purchase a book electronically with the option of reading it on a Kindle or print a fresh copy (hard or soft) "indistinguishable from their factory made versions" all for about eight bucks. The only thing that unnerves me is that Google is already pretty much leading the game for the online consumption of digital books, and now they plan on having a monopoly* with turning those purchased eBooks into actual hard-copies. Hmm.

*(with On Demand Books, so technically not a monopoly)

News Report #2

David Abel, The Boston Globe
09.04.09
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/04/a_library_without_the_books/?page=1

Later this year, Cushing Academy, a New England prep school, will become the first school in the country to abandon books completely. Campus officials have decided that after 144 years of accumilating a collection of more than 20,000 books, the school no longer needs a "traditional library." Instead, the academy will spend $500,000 to create (tentatively named) a "learning center." This "learning center" will include: three large flat-screen televisions, laptop-friendly study carrels/desks, a coffee shop (where the reference desk once was), and 18 electronic readers (Amazon Kindles and Sony Readers). James Tracy, headmaster and chief promoter of this drastic change, feels that books are an "outdated technology," deeming them the "scrolls" of this generation. However, he does not feel that this action will discourage students to read, moreover "a natural way to shape emerging trends and optimize technology." The headmaster feels that with these technologies, students will have access to millions of books, as opposed to being limited to what the library carries. He also feels that his "learning center" will be "a model for the 21st-century school." However, there are concerns that students will have more trouble focusing with the constant distractions that technologies, more specifically the Internet, are known to have (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.) There are also concerns about the durability of these electronic readers, and what that will cost down the road when students find out that books can withstand a lot more rough handling. Regardless, teachers at the school have already planned on having their students to all their class reading on electronic books next curriculum.



Okay, so, I like to think of myself as pretty technology-savvy and pretty encouraging/open-minded of new technology replacing the old, making things easier, more efficient, etc. But I found my inner old man becoming irritated as I read this article and found that Cushing Academy's bookless library being praised as "...the start of a new era" and "model for the 21st-century school." Of course, the logical side of me says "hey, you know they may be right... This could be a break-through for academia," because, to be honest, I really can't come up with any proof that Cushing's "learning center" won't spawn any more knowledge than a traditional library. However, I am all for the traditional library. The article had a quote that sums up how I feel best: "...Alexander Coyle, chairman of the history department, is a self-described 'gadget freak' who enjoys reading on Amazon’s Kindle, but he has always seen libraries and their hallowed content as 'secular cathedrals.'" I still remember the joy of having my very own library card (for school and the public.) I prided myself on keeping it in mint condition and there were hour-long periods dedicated to browsing our school's library searching for a book we wanted to take home. I even remember visiting a friend a few years ago at NC State University and sitting in a certain section of its library looking around and only seeing endless rows of computer screens, large flat-screen TVs (the kids were playing Xbox on them) and it all felt very sterile to me... like, there was no warmness of published ink. To quote the article, it was "a world where sweat-stained literature is deemed as perishable as all the glib posts on Facebook or Twitter." I don't fear that this will happen to all libraries, because I am sure it will in time, but I feel sorry for the future generations who will look at his/her parents' old books like our generation did with their vinyl records -- on second thought, I don't, because they will be sipping coffee from $12,000 cappuccino machines (seriously? wtf.)

Reading #2

"Can Wikipedia Ever Make The Grade?," by Brock Read, discusses the accuracy of the popular online encyclopedia, which can virtually be edited by anyone, and if academics should embrace it or ignore it. Read begins the article with an anecdote about a skeptical assistant professor from Quinnipiac College, who intentionally placed false, credible-looking information into 13 obscure articles. Fortunately, the Wikipedia editors constantly check over recently updated articles, so they fact-checked and reversed the assistant professor's misinformation. As a matter of fact, several scholars are wary of the Internet's new hottest information site, but are slowly becoming less hostile because of it's general appeal. Of course, their wariness is not unwarranted; the website is consistently in flux, mistakes sometimes linger in the lesser-trafficked subjects, and misinformation sometimes reaches other (reputable) websites. Leaders of Wikipedia have acknowledged this problem, as they hold an annual three-day meeting at Harvard where they discuss the policies to prevent editorial vandalism and erasing seedy entries. Nature journal recently published a study comparing the accuracy of scientific articles from Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, which found that while the average Britannica article usually had three errors, while Wikipedia usually had four. A history professor from George Mason University did the same, except with historic articles, and found they were almost as factually accurate as one another. Scholars have found that art and law are usually the weaker articles in Wikipedia, compared to history or science. Among its' 40, 000 active contributors (1, 100 of them being graduate students) professors and scholars are writing articles on their expertise, only to have them immediately deleted by Wikipedia. This probably contributes to the hostility I mentioned earlier, as professors think it is disrespectful, but the real reason is that their lengthy articles are not concise - which is pretty much the charm of Wikipedia.

Although I'm aware of the taboo of praising Wikipedia, I personally enjoy it very much and will sometimes use it up to 10 times a day - but usually it is not for anything scholarly, mainly just looking up things to ease my curiosity (countries, foods, authors, etc.) I feel that it is so appealing, regardless of it's lack of factual credibility, it probably just due to its accessible layout and vast knowledge. I think the reason that makes it so popular amongst college students is the fact that it is open to any one's input and is not as concrete or rigid as opening up an Encyclopedia. Like the professor that Brock Read mentioned, I also tried to put false information in an article which lasted for probably five seconds before it was deleted/corrected by the Wikipedia editors - something that has comforted me, as I have used Wikipedia for powerpoints, note cards, and brushing up on topics for college courses. To me, Wikipedia is nearly on the same level as Google, as a source for information, but should really be absorbed with a grain of salt (as should any result from any search engine, really)- if you can do this, you can definitely benefit from the website.

Post #2

The article "Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet", by Paul S. Piper, discusses websites found on the internet that you need to be wary of. These include: counterfeit, malicious, product, fictitious, parodies/spoofs/entertainment, hacks, and disinformation. A counterfeit website will usually look pretty official, as it probably has based itself off the template/style of the real website it is skewing. Piper writes that the counterfeit website is the most troublesome of the bunch, because it may not always be trying to achieve humor, and either way, they are often misconstrued. For example, it could be an official-looking website dealing with a historic figure that passes off lies as facts, aimed towards a younger crowd which would spread its false ideas quite diversely, if they were researching said person. Product sites, though legitimate, are still an advertisement to try to sell you something, which should always be taken with a grain of salt. Fictitious sites can deal with anything from a made-up city to an imaginary animal and are not usually very harmful (unless you are very gullible). Parody/spoof sites are mainly for entertainment, and although its content could be satirizing politics, current events, etc., their "misinformation" should be obvious in its' ridiculousness and lack of sources. Hacked websites are when legit or official websites are modified in any which way by "hackers" and can usually be corrected. However, this is least likely to occur in government sponsored websites because they would be harder to "hack." Disinformation websites usually consist of opinions over facts that steer bias' to a certain agenda or stance and can potentially be very misleading, thus harmful.

The internet is becoming the number 1 source to get information, whether it be for a school-issued paper, getting your daily news, researching a topic of interest, whatever. I know personally I've researched thousands of topics using the internet and have run into several of the websites that Piper described in his article, which is why its very important to be able to recognize these kinds of sites that could potentially lead you to believe false information or develop a bias unwillingly, etc. Of course, even before the internet, there were always "those magazines" or "those television programs" that you were taught, or just learned through experience, to be wary of - such as magazines that may advertise that Michael Jackson had aliens living with him on Neverland Ranch or bias television programs like FOX News pundits'. I feel that everything in this article I've learned already through several years' experience online and plain intuition, but there may be those whose perception would not pick up on these kinds of hoaxes, etc. and I would strongly urge them to read this article.

News Report #1

Library Groups Voice Concerns About Google Books

Wendy Davis, MediaPost News Online

5/7/09

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=105460

The American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries and Association of Research Libraries - which represent 139,000 U.S. libraries - are concerned over Google's new "digital books," which I'm guessing are very comparable to the more-known Kindle (by Amazon). Their concerns lie with a potential settlement in a lawsuit against Google, by authors and publishers, that could leave Google in a very powerful position in the up-and-coming digital books market - a market in which they plan on collecting personal information from buyers while they are not obligated to keep confidential. Authors are also worried about this settlement, because they feel that their readers won't want to purchase books without assurances of confidentiality, especially if those books deal with more risqué topics (e.g. sex, drugs). The library groups feel that Google's stance could "stifle intellectual freedom" because they would only have to make 85% of the in-copyright books it has scanned searchable and would most likely censor the books that deal with non-government-approved books (e.g. alternative lifestyle-esque, evolution, etc.) However, Google feels that this movement would benefit authors, publishers and readers, as it will yield a vast accessibility to books.

While I am completely for a higher accessibility to books, I do not feel that a single enormous company, such as Google, should really be in control of the whole digital book market. I can definitely see why the libraries are concerned over the whole privacy aspect, especially since I'm aware that libraries have always strived for private book browsing/reading/etc. And of course I can see why the more alternative authors are worried that their readers may feel that they are under surveillance while they contemplate buying a digital copy of their next book. The whole situation is unnerving, but personally I feel a bit detached from the whole ordeal, probably because I'm not really tapped into the whole digital book market. I borrowed a Kindle from my friend's aunt one time, while we were vacationing in Hilton Head Island, SC, and I just felt uncomfortable with it and my initial excitement over the new technology slowly evaporated. I'd be interested in hearing how the settlement turns out and I at least hope that any "Google book" buyers are aware of their (lack of) privacy when they purchase the product.